Predicted path selection system and method for hazard coding in selectively constrained aircraft control systems

ABSTRACT

A surveillance system detects potential hazards and alerts the pilot to them. The alerts can be modified to indicate proximity to the predicted path of the aircraft. An autopilot receives instructions from a flight management system (FMS) regarding a planned path and is subject to constraints preempting the planned path. The surveillance system selects which of the planned and a constrained path will be followed for alerting and hazard coding purposes. Means are disclosed to determine when the constrained path will be followed by comparing the current position of an aircraft, the planned path, and the constraint data. Current positions exceeding the tolerance cause the surveillance system to select the planned path as the future path to be followed. If initiation of a constraint has been detected and the current position is within the tolerance, the surveillance system selects the constrained path as the future path.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is related to Nonprovisional application Ser. No.11/367,532 filed Mar. 3, 2006 and entitled PREDICTED PATH SELECTIONSYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HAZARD CODING IN SELECTIVELY CONSTRAINED AIRCRAFTCONTROL SYSTEMS, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Modern aircraft are typically flown by a computerized autopilot (AP).The AP interfaces with Flight Control computers that are coupled both toactuators coupled to control surfaces and to engine computers such as afully automated digital control (FADEC) computer. Together these causethe aircraft to follow a prescribed path and to maintain proper lift. Anavigational computer or flight management system (FMS) receives pilotinput regarding intended lateral path to a destination and eitherreceives a vertical flight plan or develops the vertical flight planbased on pilot input, the present position and condition of theaircraft, and current flying conditions such as wind. The vertical andlateral flight paths are typically represented as a series ofinterconnected waypoints describing a path between points of departureand arrival. The FMS directs the AP to pilot the aircraft according tothe flight plan.

In some instances, constraints are input to the AP based on instructionsfrom ground based air traffic control (ATC) systems constraining theflight path of the aircraft. These constraints are typically an altitudeceiling above which the aircraft is not permitted to fly or an altitudefloor above which an aircraft must fly. The constraints preempt controlof the AP by the FMS. The FMS may nonetheless direct the AP to theextent a planned flight path does not conflict with AP constraints.

A surveillance system monitors hazards around the airplane and along apredicted flight path. Hazards include weather systems, turbulence,mountains, other aircraft, volcanic ash, and the like. The location ofhazards is displayed to the operator of the aircraft (whether onboard orremote) by means of a screen or heads up display in the cockpit. Hazardsmay be displayed in a navigational, or plan, display illustrating thehorizontal position of the aircraft and hazards. Hazards may also bedisplayed in a “vertical” display, showing the position of the aircraftand hazards in a vertical plane.

In the navigational display, it may not be immediately apparent that anaircraft's altitude carries it above or below a hazard such that thehazard does not require attention. Likewise, in the vertical displayhazards are not apparent that are slightly to one side or the otherhorizontally from the aircraft's flight path. In some systems, thesurveillance system visually distinguishes symbology representinghazards according to whether the hazards lie along a predicted flightpath, or within a specific tolerance of a predicted flight path.Distinctive representation of hazards enables a pilot to focus attentionon hazards likely to be encountered by the aircraft. For example, inFIG. 1, the aircraft 10 flying along the predicted flight path 12 islikely to encounter hazard 14 a whereas hazard 14 b does not lie on thepredicted flight path. Accordingly, a navigational display 16 mightappear as in FIG. 2 having hazard 14 a represented in a solid colorwhereas hazard 14 b is shown with hash marks. Distinctive representationmay be accomplished by other markings, fill patterns, colors, and thelike. In some systems, a surveillance system is programmed to issueaudible, pictoral, and/or textual alerts when a hazard is found to liealong a predicted flight path. Audible alerts may distinguish alerts foron-path hazards from off-path hazards by means of the volume of thealert, the gender of the speaker, words used in the alert, and the like.Accordingly, the surveillance system distinguishes between on- andoff-path hazards when determining whether to issue an alert.

The AP, FMS, surveillance system, and various control panels aretypically embodied as discrete autonomous units, interfacing with oneanother in precisely defined ways. The criticality of each of thecomponents means that each must be carefully tested and certified byregulatory agencies before being approved for installation. Modificationof the components requires similar testing and regulatory approval.Modification of the AP and associated control panels in particular is anextremely complicated and expensive process because its role in controlof the aircraft is so vital.

In one system, the surveillance system receives the planned flight pathdetermined by the FMS. The surveillance system may also be notified ofany constraint that has been imposed, such as an altitude ceiling orfloor, though in some systems no notice is given and imposition of theconstraint is detected by other means. The surveillance system does notreceive notice when the constraint ceases to be active. Accordingly, thesurveillance system is unable to determine when the aircraft is nolonger subject to the constraint and is therefore unable to determinewhether the predicted flight path will follow the constrained flightpath or the unconstrained planned flight path.

This problem arises in the scenario of FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrating aplanned flight path 18 in the vertical view. An aircraft 10 may followan actual path 20 passing through, or “sequencing,” a waypoint 22forming part of the planned path 18 within an area in which a constraint28, such as an altitude ceiling (FIG. 3A) or an altitude floor (FIG. 3B)is in effect. At point 30, the actual path 20 of the aircraft 10transitions from following the planned flight path 18 to conform to theconstraint 28. At point 32 the aircraft 10, the aircraft 10 begins tofollow the planned path 18 and directs itself toward waypoint 34. InFIG. 3A, the aircraft 10 transitions to the planned path 18 because itlies below the constraint 28. In FIG. 3B, the aircraft 10 transitionsbecause the constraint 28 is changed to an altitude lying below theplanned path 18. At points 30 and 32 the surveillance system is notnotified which path will be followed as the aircraft 10 moves forward.Accordingly, it is not apparent for which of the hazards 14 a-14 c toprovide alerts.

Accordingly, it would be an advancement in the art to provide systemsand methods for resolving which of the constrained flight path andunconstrained flight path will be followed by the aircraft. It would bea further advancement in the art to provide such systems that do notrequire modification of the AP or the FMS.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention selects whether the constrained flight path orunconstrained flight path will be followed by an aircraft by evaluatingwhether the current location of the aircraft is within a predeterminedtolerance of a constrained path, taking into account priordeterminations, and predicting an unconstrained path will be followed ifthe current position is not within the tolerance.

Systems and methods for predicted path selection include a controller,such as an autopilot (AP), directly or indirectly actuating controlsurfaces and propulsion systems of an aircraft to cause the aircraft tofollow an actual path. The controller receives a planned path from aflight planner, such as an FMS. The controller also occasionallyreceives a constraint from a control panel, such as a Flight ControlUnit (FCU) or Mode Control Panel (MCP), constraining the actual pathfollowed by the aircraft in at least one direction, such as the verticaldirection. The control panel provides an output indicating what thecurrent constraints are, and the controller or FMS may provide outputindicating that a constraint has been imposed. One or more of theseoutputs are provided to a surveillance system operable to detect hazardsand may provide a display visually distinguishing on- and off-pathhazards.

In some embodiments, the controller, the FMS, or both, do not provide anoutput to the surveillance system indicating that a constraint has beenimposed. In such embodiments the constraint may be detected by analyzingthe altitude history of the aircraft 10 to determine if the aircraft isdescending onto a floor or ascending from a floor. For example, if anaircraft 10 that was descending levels off at an altitude, thesurveillance system may assume that a floor has been encountered.Likewise, if an aircraft that was ascending levels off at an altitude,the surveillance system may assume that a ceiling has been encountered.

The surveillance system compares the current location of the aircraft tothe constraint. If the separation between current location and theconstraint is outside a predetermined tolerance, the surveillance systemdisplays symbols lying on the planned path as critical. If theseparation between the current location and the constraint is within thepredetermined tolerance and the surveillance system otherwise determinesthat a constraint was activated, and then the surveillance systemdisplays symbols lying on the constrained path as critical.Distinguishing of symbols may be accomplished by representing criticaland non-critical hazards with differing colors or line styles or fillpatterns. Distinguishing hazards as critical or non-critical may also beused in alerting algorithms.

As the aircraft continues forward, selections of the predicted path arevalidated. In one embodiment, if the aircraft has deviated from theconstraint in the direction opposite the flight plan, perhaps due towind or fuel burn, the FMS will typically guide the aircraft back towardthe original flight plan and back into the constraint. Accordingly, thesurveillance system may continue to select the constrained path forstrategic purposes (e.g. because the aircraft is not within tolerance ofthe flight plan), or may choose to switch to a tactical display, basedon immediate actual flight path (speed and direction) for the period inwhich the aircraft deviates from the constraint. As the FMS returns theaircraft to within a certain tolerance of the constraint altitude andthe aircraft deviates from the planned path to again follow theconstrained path, the surveillance system will again select theconstrained path as the future path as well as portions of the plannedpath that do not violate the constraint. Adequate timeguarding may beused to ensures a smooth and consistent presentation to the crew.

In instances where the aircraft has deviated from the constraint in thedirection of the flight plan, perhaps again due to winds or fuel burn,either the AP will force the aircraft back to the constraint altitude,such that the constrained path continues to be used for distinguishinghazards, or else not, in which case the surveillance system will switchto either the unconstrained path or a tactical display, depending onproximity to the FMS flight plan and on timeguarding.

As will be readily appreciated from the foregoing summary, the inventionprovides a reliable method for selecting which of a planned path and aconstrained path will be followed by an aircraft for hazard codingpurposes. The above described system does not require modification ofthe AP or FMS.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING

The preferred and alternative embodiments of the present invention aredescribed in detail below with reference to the following drawings.

FIG. 1 is a side schematic view of an aircraft, flight path, andintervening hazards;

FIG. 2 is an exemplary on-screen representation of coded hazardinformation;

FIGS. 3A and 3B are side schematic views of an aircraft following aflight path subject to a constraint;

FIG. 4 is a schematic block diagram of components of an avionic controland navigational system formed in accordance with an embodiment of thepresent invention;

FIG. 5 is a schematic block diagram of a surveillance system suitablefor performing predictive flight path selection for hazard coding formedin accordance with an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 6 is a process flow diagram of a method for predictive flight pathselection formed in accordance with an embodiment of the presentinvention;

FIG. 7 is a logic diagram for performing predictive flight pathselection formed in accordance with an embodiment of the presentinvention; and

FIGS. 8A and 8B are side schematic views of an aircraft and constrainedand unconstrained flight paths formed in accordance with an embodimentof the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Referring to FIG. 4, in one embodiment an aircraft 10 includes anavionic control system 36, which may include a controller 38, such as anAutopilot (AP) 38, an, FMS 40, and a surveillance system 42. Thecontroller 38 is coupled to the propulsion system 44 and controlsurfaces 46 of the aircraft 10. The controller 38 is programmed tocontrol the aircraft propulsion systems 44 and control surfaces 46 toachieve a desired trajectory. Manual controls 48 and external controls50 provide inputs to the controller 38 to provide a trajectory. Externalcontrols 50 include directives from systems external to the aircraft 10such as air traffic control (ATC) or other remote “fly by wire” typesystems as may be applicable to manned or unmanned aircraft. The FMS 40calculates a planned flight path between the current location of theaircraft 10 and a destination and provides a trajectory to thecontroller 38 to cause the controller 38 to fly the aircraft 10 alongthe planned flight path. The surveillance system 42 detects hazardousconditions through means such as radar, uploaded weather data,topographical data, air traffic data, and the like. The FMS 40 providesdata relating to a planned path to the surveillance system 42 to enablethe surveillance system to provide alerts indicating hazards that arelocated along the planned path or to mark on-path hazards as critical ina strategic display provided to the pilot.

The controller 38 or one of the control panels 48 may provide an inputto the FMS 40 and/or surveillance system 42 indicating what the currentconstraints are. Alternatively, the input is provided to the FMS 40 andthe FMS 40 provides an indication that the constraint has become activeto the surveillance system 42. In one embodiment, this is accomplishedby metadata associated with a waypoint defining a planned flight pathprovided to the surveillance system 42. The metadata may include asingle bit that is set or reset to indicate that a waypoint is aconstraint waypoint.

In some embodiments, the surveillance system 42 is not provided noticethat a constraint has become active. In such embodiments, thesurveillance system 42 may analyze the actual path followed by theaircraft to determine whether a constraint has become active and wherethe constraint is. For example, the aircraft 10 may ascend according tothe planned path 18 and then level off at an altitude not indicated inthe planned path 18 as a level off point. The surveillance system 42 maytherefore conclude that a constraint has been imposed at the constraintaltitude. An altitude floor may be detected in a like manner duringdescent of the aircraft 10. The surveillance system 42 may also detectimposition of the constraint by analyzing one or more of the actual pathof the aircraft 10, the path 18 calculated by the FMS 40, and analysisof flight control laws followed by the FMS, controller 38, and/or othersystems within the aircraft 10.

Referring to FIG. 5, the surveillance system 42 includes one or moredetection modules 52, a path selection module 54, a coding module 56,and a display module 58. A detection module 52 may process radar,uploaded weather, terrain-data, air traffic data, and the like in orderto evaluate the location of potential hazards. A path selection module54 determines which of the constrained path and planned path will beused for hazard coding purposes. In one embodiment, the path selectionmodule 54 evaluates the separation between the current position of theaircraft 10 and the constrained path. If the separation exceeds acertain tolerance, the path selection module 54 selects the plannedflight as the future path purpose of distinguishing between on- andoff-path hazards. If a constraint has been initiated and the separationis less than the tolerance, then the path selection module 54 selectsthe constrained path and portions of the planned path 18 that do notviolate the constraint 28 as the future path for purposes ofdistinguishing between on- and off-path hazards. A coding module 56determines which of the detected hazards lies along the path selected bythe path selection module 54 in order to code symbols as on- or off-pathin a symbolic display provided to the pilot. The display module 58displays coded symbols representing the hazards on a screen or heads-updisplay. Alternatively, the display module 58 provides visible oraudible alerts when a hazard is detected along the selected path.

Referring to FIG. 6, in one embodiment, the path selection module 54executes a method 60 for determining which of the constrained path andplanned path to use for hazard coding purposes. The method 60 includesdetermining 62 the current location of the aircraft 10. Determining 62the current location includes evaluating the altitude of the aircraft ininstances where the constraint is an altitude constraint. The differencebetween the current location and the constraint is then evaluated 64 todetermine whether the current location is within a predeterminedtolerance of the constraint. Differences between the current locationand the constraint may be caused by changes in aircraft position orchanges in the value of the constraint. The tolerance may be anavigational tolerance substantially equal to the distance an aircraft10 can deviate from an intended flight path and still be deemed to befollowing the flight path. Alternatively, the tolerance may be half orsome other proportion, of the required vertical separation betweenaircraft under FAA regulations such as the Reduced Vertical SeparationMinimum (RVSM) standards. Vertical separations under the RVSM currentlyrange from 500 feet to 1000 feet depending on the altitude.

If not within tolerance, the path selection module 54 selects 66 theplanned path as the future path that will be followed by the aircraft 10for purposes of distinguishing on- and off-path hazards. If theaircraft's current location is within the tolerance, the method 60includes evaluating 68 whether a constraint was initiated. Step 68 maytherefore include evaluating whether a waypoint, such as the mostrecently sequenced waypoint, or “from point,” is a constraint waypoint.Alternatively, step 68 may include detecting initiation of constraint byother means, such as by detecting leveling off of the airplane at analtitude not on the flight path. If a constraint has not been initiated,the path selection module 54 selects 66 the planned path as the path tobe followed by the aircraft 10. If the waypoint is a constraintwaypoint, the surveillance system 42 selects 70 the constrained path asthe future path for purposes of providing alerts or distinguishingbetween on- and off-path hazards.

FIG. 7 illustrates a logic diagram implementing a method for selecting,which of a constrained path and planned path will be followed by anaircraft 10. Inputs to the logical circuit include the current altitude80 of the aircraft 10, such as a corrected barometric altitude from anair data computer (ADC); the constraint altitude 82; a tolerance 84; andthe value 86, or state, of a variable within the flight path generatedby the FMS indicating whether the previously sequenced waypoint, or“from” point was a constraint waypoint.

The constraint 82 is subtracted 88 from the current altitude 80 todetermine the difference therebetween. The absolute value of thedifference is then calculated 90. The tolerance 84 is subtracted 92 fromthe absolute value and the result is compared 94 to zero. If theabsolute value is greater than zero, a status indicator 96 is set toindicate that the planned path is to be used for hazard coding. Thestatus indicator 96 may be a set/reset flip flop having the comparisonstep 94 resetting the flip flop when the absolute value is greater thanzero.

The value 86 indicating the status of the “from” waypoint is evaluated98 to determine whether the value 86 indicates that the “from” waypointis a constraint waypoint. If so, the status indicator 96 is updated toindicate that the constrained path is to be used for hazard codingpurposes. Where the status indicator 96 is embodied as a set-reset flipflop, the result of the evaluation 98 is input to the set terminal ofthe flip flop. The status indicator 96 is coupled to the coding module54 to indicate which of the constrained path and planned path to use forhazard coding. For status indicators 96 embodied as a set/resetflip-flop, an output of a logical one (1) indicates that the constrainedpath will be used whereas an output of a logical zero (0) indicates thatthe planned path will be used.

Referring to FIGS. 8A and 8B, in one scenario an aircraft 10 has aplanned flight path 110 at point 112. However, an altitude ceiling 114(FIG. 5A) or altitude floor 116 (FIG. 5B) constrains the aircraft 10 tofollow a constrained path 124. The FMS 40 may generate an updatedplanned path 120 based on the current location of the aircraft 10 atpoints 122 along the constrained path 124. As the aircraft 10 passesthrough the boundary 126 of an area subject to a ceiling 114 or floor116, the surveillance system 42 in some systems is not notified that theceiling 114 or floor 116 is no longer active.

To resolve this situation, where the current location of the aircraft 10is separated from the constrained path 124 by a distance greater than atolerance 128, the path selection module 54 selects the updated plannedpath 120 as the future path for purposes of distinguishing between on-and off-path hazards. If a constraint has been initiated and the currentlocation of the aircraft 10 is within the tolerance 128, then the pathselection module 54 selects the constrained path 124 and portions of theupdated planned path 120 that do not violate the constraint 28 as thefuture path.

The above described novel method for selecting which of the constrainedpath 124 and updated planned path 120 will be followed by the aircraft10 is effective to provide accurate hazard coding and hazard alerts. TheFMS 40 is typically programmed to update the flight plan during ascentand descent such that the updated planned path 120 originates from theaircraft's current position, which is on or near the constrained path124 when a constraint is active. Accordingly, differences in short-rangehazard coding and alerts will not differ substantially between theconstrained path 124 and updated planned path 120. Long and medium rangepredictions may differ. However, where an aircraft deviates from aconstrained path 124 while a constraint should be active, external orpilot input commands will reinstate the constraint, which may result inexplicit notice to the surveillance system 42 that the constraint hasbecome active as described above. The surveillance system 42 may alsodetect reinstating of the constraint by other means such as by detectingleveling off of the airplane at an altitude not on the planned path 120.Until the constraint is reinstated, the assumption that the updatedplanned path 120 will remain accurate for short range hazard coding andother predictions inasmuch as the updated planned path 120 is constantlyupdated to reflect the current position of the aircraft. Where theconstraint is no longer active, the assumption that the updated plannedpath 120 will be followed will also be accurate.

While the preferred embodiment of the invention has been illustrated anddescribed, as noted above, many changes can be made without departingfrom the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the scope ofthe invention is not limited by the disclosure of the preferredembodiment. Instead, the invention should be determined entirely byreference to the claims that follow.

1. A predicted path selection system for aircraft comprising: acontrolling means for controlling control surfaces and propulsionsystems of an aircraft to cause the aircraft to follow an actual path,the controlling means receiving a first input describing a planned pathand a second input indicating a constraint on the actual path in atleast one direction, the controlling means selectively causing theaircraft to conform the actual path to the planned path or a constrainedpath corresponding to the constraint; a means for inputting theconstraint to the controlling means; a flight planning means forcalculating a planned path and inputting the planned path to thecontrolling means; and a surveillance means for detecting locations ofhazards and producing alerts corresponding to hazards near a predictedflight path, the surveillance means detecting activation of theconstraint, detecting an aircraft location, comparing the aircraftlocation to the constrained path upon detecting activation of theconstraint, and issuing alerts for hazards located along the constrainedpath when the aircraft location is within a tolerance distance of theconstrained path.
 2. The predicted path selection system of claim 1,wherein the alerts comprise relevant symbols displayed to an operator,the surveillance means further configured to display non-relevantsymbols corresponding to hazards distanced from the predicted flightpath.
 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the surveillance means displayshazards near the planned path as relevant and all other hazards asnon-relevant when the aircraft location is outside a tolerance distancefrom the constrained path.
 4. The system of claim 2, wherein thesurveillance means displays relevant symbols according to a first fillpattern and non-relevant symbols according to a second fill pattern. 5.The system of claim 1, wherein the constraint is an altitude constraint.6. The system of claim 1, wherein the controlling means is an autopilot(AP).
 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the flight planning means is aflight management system (FMS).
 8. The system of claim 1, wherein theplanning means repeatedly recalculates the planned path according to theaircraft location.
 9. A system for selecting a predicted path, thesystem comprising: a flight controller controlling actuators coupled tocontrol surfaces and the propulsion systems of an aircraft andconfigured to cause the aircraft to follow an actual path, the flightcontroller receiving a first input describing a planned path and asecond input indicating a constraint on the actual path in at least onedirection, the flight controller configured to selectively cause theaircraft to conform the actual path to the planned path or a constrainedpath corresponding to the constraint; a flight planner configured tocalculate a planned path and input the planned path to the flightcontroller; and a surveillance system configured to detect locations ofhazards and produce a symbolic display comprising relevant symbolscorresponding to hazards near a predicted flight path and non-relevantsymbols corresponding to hazards away from the predicted flight path,the surveillance system being further operable to detect activation ofthe constraint and to compare a current aircraft location to theconstrained path upon detecting activation of the constraint, andproviding critical audible alerts corresponding to the hazards locatedalong the constrained path and to provide noncritical audible alertscorresponding to the hazards not located along the constrained path whenthe aircraft location is within a tolerance distance from theconstrained path.
 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the criticalaudible alerts differ from the critical alerts with respect to acharacteristic chosen from a group consisting of volume, words used,gender of a speaker, and frequency.